The Sun. — London, England, 1808-11-12 00:00:00

s-or LAW REPORT. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. to. DAGNELL V. WILEY. rThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL. moved for a rule to thew cause why there should not be. a new trial in sl lois cause. It was an action lipon a Bill of' 1,,x -e].allge-:--VidiL'A for the. Plaintiff. The considera tion !or which bill he niaintaine`l to he umtrious. The , A a whA was called a Bill Broker.— . He ciitid understand what was meant by a Foreign • Bill of Exchange Broker, because, in that case, he purchased a b• 11 of a person wtn;se name might not be on it, and might give another for it, and the traffic ixould depeld on the rate of exchange be tween this country and that to which the foreign bill of exchange related. Thus, for instance, a person might purchase a forcien bill of exchange, the rate of . the' exchange of which might depend upon the relative,situations of this country and Por tiviral I in cases of this kind he 'could understand• • • xviiat was meant by a bill broker. But a bill broker Of inland bills of exchange was a charaaer which he did dot understand, because money advanced on them were mere loans of money. In this case there was no brokerage, and therefore'there should be no coinmission. This was a mere dry loan of money, in w inch there was no pretence for commission, ai[!l,,ugh here was colninission charged in such a manner as • (0 Make, it the clearest case of usury that imagioation could suggest ; and it had been multiplied in such a manner, as that Plaintiff the iougHt to hide the illegality, of the . transacaion the muitiOlichy of the aets- which proved it: Lord ,ELLENBoanuCH.—" I am afraid that an idea has gone forth, that what May be thought an usury in a si;tgle instance, acquires a species of in , nor... Awe by tb multipticity of the crime." ATTORNF.V-GENERAL.—"My Lord Kenyon (loan in the case of a person of. the name of itliths„ that that inch is charged under the name interest, cannot he attc4wards justified as a commis sion ; reasoning from thence, some per,,ons haiie ar 7 - rived at the conclusion, that what they charge as commiSsion, cannot by possibility be turned into usury."—H:iVing Stated- the circumstances of the case, the Court granted a Rule to shew cause. FALSE ARREST. BOADEN V. FETTER. Mr. Serjeant LENS moved- for a rule to chew cause why a orin,uit should not be entered, or why there should . not be a new trial. It was an action for malicionsly causing the. Plaintiff tai he arrested, and to be detained in prison. The Plaintiff came to Rtrnstap,e, but was not known There ; he appeared afterward~ w be at 'Winchester. 'While at Barnstaple, Hooper, a per son in his vinployment,was arrested for a debt of 561. and the Plaintiff, Boaden, felt an interest in pro curitV., the enlargement of this agent of his, which the. De:endaut, who was the Sheriff's Officer who had arrested the man, assented to, on a deposit of 301. by way of sure!) , for his appearance before the retain of the writ.. Accordingly the Plaintiff, • Boaden, deposited with this Sheriff's Officer, the Defendant, two bank -notes, one of 201, and one of PA. as a pledge for the return and-surrender of Hooper on the darappointed, Which was on the 21st .of May on which Hooper was liberated. On the tst May Hooper surrendered himself in discharge of • his Master's engagement; upon which Boaden, the master, demanded his notes" in return for this surrender. He had taken of Petter, the Defendant, a written acknowledgment of his having taken, by Way of deposit, these notes as a security for the surrender of Hooper. This produced a difference between Boaden and Petter, the Plaintiff and De fendant in the present adtion ; the latter suspe6ting that the notes were forged, detained them, and tore the paper of acknowledgrneyt, upon which, instead of giving tire note, - to Boaden, Petter took him into custody, for the put pose of securing hint in case the notes were forged, which he suspeaed them to be, and tlu y tad a very suspicious appearance, for the. one of them was dated so long back as the year 1774, and the other in - the year 1777; and Boaden him self, who had deposited them, had not the least ap pearan; e A-But-nue. To w hich Was added another Circumstance whit h increased the suspicion, for the notts were I:9t mach viyable to Bank Cashier, as i , usual in Rink Ncres, but to a parliCular per- The Defendant; a Sheriff's Officer • did not 5011. . - undertake to understand these matters, but thought it his duty not to let this man have these notes, nor to let him go away, um:er all these suspicious cir cumstances, and teerefere detained h m ; but he did not pro, eed from his'own judgment, for he asked the opinit , n of i Magistrate on the case; and from wh om he obtained a warrant for apprehending this man.— Ucon this he was detained from the 2 1 gt to the 26th May., ti h;Ch was• the time necessary to diScover whetl:er these notes were genuine or not ; fof Which purpose they were sent up to the Bank of Engl an d, from wi.ence an answer came down that the notes were genuine; and it turned nut that they had been lockeki up by an old gentleman, and kept for many years in his chest. Upon wbiph this man, who had been thus wrested on susphion, was set at liberty, and upon which he brought his anion for a Malici ous arrest and detention ; thefoundation of which was the wart of probable cause. • No'.v the Learned Serrant Contended, that the Plaintiff ought to be nonsui!ed, for here was no malice ; the man was a mere sininger, and here was probable cause from ail these suspicious circumstances; and a banker in the town of BArnsiaple,• when he. saw these notes, thought .they were fOrged. The Court asked the Learned Serjeant what the datr6ges were in this case ? He Said he had not got the sum upOn his brief, he believed 201. or 301.; but he not move on account of excessive damages; be submitted that . as there was here no malice, and ai there was , a probable cause for detention, the Plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited. Lord ..ELLENeo*tioccir observed, that although there be no expresi'mAlice, yet if a person acted with gross-negligence and indifference to' the cOm fort or another, it would supply the want of malice to support such an action as this, because from . gros negligtn(e and indifference to the comfort of ant ther, malice might be inferred. Mr. BUR ROUGH observed, that there was a very material tacl proyed which had not yet bet ti stated, which was, that when this Sheriff's ailieer, the Defendant, had got this paper, acknowledging that these notes were left with him as a deposit, he not only tore the paper, but afterwards said to the Plain tiff, " There ! what have you got now to shew for your notes ?" Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" I am afraid, Brother LENS, that 9te next question is, " What have you. got to shew for your motion ?" - Mr. Justice LE BLaNc—And it appears, that this Sheriff's Officer was not disposed to inquire whether these notes were forged or not, until he was called upon to deliver them up." For these reasons, the Court saw no cause for disturbing this verdict --Motion refused. Baooxs (qui tam) V. MIDDLET6N. Mr. GARROW moved for a Rule to spew \ cause Why there should not be a new trial. This he treat ed as a Cause of no less usury than that of a quarter per cent, per month in the transaction's o) Bills of Exchange and Loans between the said parties. The verdict was for the Defendant, against the whole of the evidence, as well as against the clear decisive opinion of his Lordship, as well as his dtreaiOn to the Jury ; who were bent, in defiance of all autho rity, to b r ing in a verdidt f o r the D e f en d an t. He considered these modern verdicts of acquittal of per sons guilty of barefaced .usury, as a very alarming matter in our late administration of justice. Here Mr. Justice Gauss suggested a doubt, whe ther in any penal case, either of misdemeanour, or a civil suit, and where there was a %erdict found for the Defendant, tile Court ever wanted a. new trial, except in a case of a mistake, or kruisdireEtion of the Judge. This produced a great many observations from the Bench, iu which the Chief Justice inclined to assent to this suggesti,2n , getterally, but thought it ought to have some limits, otherwise there wi,uld be no remedy against the rnost outrageCus when they happened to be for Defendants in penal .cases, excel* the very old remedy of attaint, which might now savour of harshness. Pcrhaps the better way would be, to take time to consider this matter, for the Court to look into ali tine precedents, and see whether they were absolutely precluded b) them from interfering in any case whatever of a penal kind, where the verdict was for the Deteildot, ex cept where thew \ was a mistake, or a misdirection of ►h e Judge. _ _ _ _ _ _ Mr. Justice GROSE said, it .had been rivetted in his mind that such was the established rule. Mr. Justice LE IiLANC inclined the same way, but thought it better to look into the case. Mr. Justice BAILEY saw - a great deal of danger in a Rule of this kind without limits ; he apprei►ended it might encourage Juries, in some cases, to g►ve verdicts in one way, know►ng there could be no re vision of them. The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he knew of a case on the game laws, wherein the Defendant was sued, for a penalty for shooting a partridge, he not being qualified. The evidence was, the Witness saw the Defendant shoot at the partridge, and saw the bird fill immediately after ; but a Learned Counsel for the Defendant told the Jury, that probably the bird fell froth frighr at the noise of the explosion, arid the Jury adopted that reasoning, and found a ierdid for the Defendant ; yet so binding was the Rule, that the Court refused to gr an t a new trial, bteause it was a verdict for the Defit t udant in a penal action. The Court, upon this, expressed a desire to look into all the cases, to see whether it was tied down by this praetice in cases so flagrantly improper; and to order in the mean time, judgment should not be entered up pursuant to the ver:id in this case. But afterwards a case being handed up which., is to be found in 3d Wilson, 50, in the Common Pleas ; in which . it _ap peared, by determination of the whole Court, that there was to be no new trial in a penal case wherein the verdiet was for the, Defendant, for the praCtice was so uniformly for 50 years, and condemned a case:. in Keebie, 226, holding a contrary doctrine ; frown this case, in Wilson, the Court held itself precluded front entertaining a motion for a: new trial in a penal case, where the veradis for the Defendant, except in case of mistake or axis-direction of the Judge„. DOE, ON THE DEMISE OP ASKEW, V. ASKEW. Mr. TOPPING moved for a Rule to-7shew 'cause why there should not be a. new trial, which was On an action of ejectment. A widow had been admitted to a copyriold estate in, a manor in Westmorland, which she was entitled 'to during her widowhood ; but it was held she bad forfeited her title by' having had a child, on the ground that she was not to . hold `doting widowhood, but during a state of chaste wi dowhood. Upon that subjed, the numbers of pei-sons admitted into this manor were proved by the stew ard to be equal, of those who were to' hold doring Widowhood, and during chaste widowhood; but this manor had many singular modes of admission, for some persons were admitted after they were dead —and this resembled, in principle, a practice former ly iii Scotland, on the borders of which. this manor stood ; he had learned from his friend, Mr. George Wilson, that in former days, in Scotland, those who had been in rebellion, and were buried, had their bones dug up, and tied for high treason ; and, if foui,d guilty, the estate was forfeited by the corrup tion of blood attending that conviation.—Rulc grant ed to show cause. N'OVEMBER 1 i. SIAM (qui tarn) v. ROGERS. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a Rule to whew cause why the writ of mandamus, issued to compel certain Justices of the Sessions to return this convition, should not be quashed. The objet of this motion was to facilitate that which the .a.,,fend ant wished." The Justices had convicted the Defend ant of an of against the 42d of Geo. 111. which was an a& to prohibit ail persons from watering malt "within a certain time, and in a' certain manner therein specified. The 46th of the King repealed . the 4-1, and gave the party convicted before alus tice, the right of appeal, which the 42d did not ; but the 46th was only in force for a limited time, which was expited a the date of the present cort ; for, on the expiration of the 46th, the 42d revived; and by the 42d there was no appeal ; so tliA the Defendant could make, nothing of his man damus, and therefore it was that he moved it should he quashed. The Defendant was aectivrd in sup posing that he had an appeal, and now he was out of . time-for his certiorari, and which be could not have without his (the Attorney-General's) consent, but he would consent if the writ of mandamus was quashed.—Rule to shew cause. Mr. GARRow moved f9r a Rule to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not pay the costs of this action, on the ground that he had held the Defend ant for a larger sum than was due to him, and be - recovered. It was an attiou upon a Bond given, ori ginally for 1501. but which had been reduced by payment to 501.4 and this the , Plaintiff must have known, because the suns paid had been endorsed on the Bond itself; notwithstanding which, he had held. the Defendant to bail for 611.—Rule to shew cause granted. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. to. PAYI`ON V. WINTER AND HAY. This was an action bromght to•recover the amount of a bill of exchange, which bad been altered, when left for acceptauce,from one to two months after date, by which the Plaintiff was disabled .from re covering from the maker, upon account of the alter-. at ion. Mr. Serjeant RUNNINGTON contended that, by law, the acceptors were warranted to accept under what terms they pleased; and for this purpose quot ed two cases, the one from Strange, where the time of payment was altered, as in the present in stance, the other from Burrough, where the altera tion was in the-sum. The Court was of the same opitiion, and refused to grant the rule for setting aside the verdict fur the Defendants. BANWELL V. BARRIS. This alion had been brOught to recover the sum of 271. tus. deposit, in the hands of the Defendant, as auctioneer, uvon the sale of a house, which 'was sold, Subjiti:t to a ground-rent of two guitieas, for want of I ii le. At the trial it was proved, for the Plaintiff, that . the house in question was part of a large lot of ground and houses, the ground-rent of which having never been divided by any deed of the head land lord, this house, •or any other part,-was liable to the entire of the rent, and, consequently, that the seller bad no good title. The- Defendant proved, that the landlord had ac cepted two guineas a-year for this house for up wards of twenty years; and Sir JAMES MANSFIELD, before whom the action had been tried, left it to the Jury whether this acceptance of rent, for so long a period, was not such a severance as to discharge the house from liability to any further rent. There was a verdi& for the Plaintiff., with liberty to enter a nonsnit; subject to this point. WILSON V. JOHNSON, AND WILSON V. TURNER. . These were two a&ions to recover compensation in damages for malicious arrests, and verdias- in both, for the Plsintitic , in the sums of 10001. and 15001. In the action with Turner, it was proved, for the Plaintiff, that the Attorney for the Defend ant had ottered to release the Plaintiff.out of custo dy, upon his discharging the other Defendant, Johnson, the noted smuggler, from a demand made against him, and fur which he had held - him to bail ; but this was denied by Johnson to be authorised by him, and therefore it was now contended, upon mo tion for a new trial, that the , . evidence was not ad, missible. • The Rule to sllew cause was granted. WOOLLEN V. LARgMONT AND OTHERS. This attion was brought by the Plaintiff, a baker, 'against the Defendants, contractors with Government for the supply of the troops at Shef field with bread, for -the amount of bread alledged to have been so supplied by him on their credit and account. The defence at the trial was, that the bread in question was not supplied on their credit., but orr that of a person of the nairie of Mast (since a bankrupt) who was a sub-coniraEtor under them, .and they called a witness to that fad. - The Jury understanding that such sub-contra& was contrary to the terms between Government and contractors, found for the Plaintiff 1401. damages. It was now moved to set aside this verdt& on the abcrve - evi 7 6nce, and also on the deed of agreement between the Plaintiff and Mast, _which was not forthcoming at the trial. . Rule to spew cause granted.\ POLICE. BOW-STREET.—A case lias.been under the pri , vate investigation of Mr. GR for se%ei al days past, which•proves it almost essentially necessary that every man, however exalted in his character or consequence, should keep a journal of hi, tine, to avoid the most - unpleasant circrmstances and serious consequences. The following are the particulars : About two o'clock last Saturday morning, a tailor's and mercer's shop, in the neighbourhood of .St. Martin's-lane; was broke' open : the noise of the robbers awoke the tailor, who slept in his back par lour ; he 'got up, and it being moon-light, he dis tinaly saw that one of his 'shop-window shutters was taken Clown, and two robbers at his window, the glass broken, and one of the robbers taking goods out ()Ibis shop. He looked at them for some time till he made up his mind that he had seen sufficient ly of their persons so that he should be able to iden tify them, it being nearly as light as day: indeed, one of them he knew well, he having been in his shop a few days previous, and ordered a pair of pan taloons. After he . had satisfied himself with observ ing their persons, he gave an alai in, and the robbers made the course of the morning, the tailor gave information at-the above Office of t he' robbery, and positively described the man who had ordered a pair of pantaloons a few days previous, and assigned,. as suspicious corroboration, that when the man Or dered the pantaloons, he being a stranger to -him, he asked for a deposit of..one pound, he not being in the habit of making clothes for strangers, without taking that precaution,. to preVent clothes being thrown upon his hands; which he refused to do. He agreed to call upon Anthony, the Officer, on Sunday morning, at nine o'clock, to Jo and take the man: he described into custody. - Anthony' waited for him during Sunday, but the tailor did not call. 'On Monday morning the tailor called at the Office again. 'Anthony asked him the reason of his• not keeping his time ? to which he replied, that-some friends had advised him that Sunday was an impro- . per day ; and asked if it- was not time enough then .• Anthony having learned that it was a person of sGrrm consequence he , wanted to take into custody, • de dined having any thing to du with it. On Tuesday evening, the person who hid ordered. the pantaloons, called at the shop to inquire ih theY were done; the tailOr made some excuse to detain him in the shop, and in the. mean time sent out fc ) C assistance, had him secured, and taken to St. Martin's watch-house. • On Wednesday morning he was taken before Air' GRAHAM, and the tailor swore positively to his be ing one of the robber's; when (extraordinary to re' . late !) the Prisoner proved to be Captain 'C. pf flig army, a Gentleman of the highest respeCl;.!bilityi whose relative holds.an exalted place at Cobrt... - Mr. GRAHAM has'been, indefatigable in his, e:F,er - • dons in this extraordinary business: and 'on 1 . 1 11 0'..- day it was proved, in the most incontrovertible man ner, that the gentleinan was in bed at' his own resi-, dence at the time of the robbery. He was consik quently discharged. MAR LBOROUGH-STREET.—A charge of an Assault; with intent . ,to commit a rape oh a respectable 'led woman, as made against a,man of the natvo of Patrick Callan, who is upwards of sixty years of age, under circumstances that rendered the attempt two-fold diabolical. The complair,ant, who is tt'° wife of a Salesman in Covent Garden Market, re sides. in a cottage at Chelsea ; and in consequewl i of a dispute betwixt Lord Ranelagh and a I.andlorA at Chelsea, by the desire of the footer the rent was not paid, and the Landlord put an execution into th e house. • The prisoner was put 'into possession, ana there being only one bed in the house, he was ac commodated with it, whilst. the Complainant sfrP i on chairs in another room. She had occasit i° enter the room where the Prisoner slept during is ' l night, to quiet one of her children, when the. Pr i l; soner concluded himself in a manner which it wow' be indwcent to describe. The Complainant. suc ceeded in alarming her neighbours, and the PriSoqf was prevented accomplishing his, brutal purport' He was committed fur trial kg the attempt. A little thief, twelve .years of age, was charged with robbing the premise% of a Music Master ill Clipstone-street. He was detetted at an early bou t. yesterday .morning ascending the area,steps of (b e ' prosecutor's house; and on being taken, his exc ll46 was, that he had dropped a chissel down the, area-7 -- kpewter plate was found on him, the only t king. o could find to steal; and before the Ma g istrate 116 confessed the attempt to rob the house, in compoi with a juvenile depredator, about his own :age, P sci ' tided with the necessary imiAernents. THE WALKING dposr. The name of this extraordinary person, wil° l l labours surpass any of the boasted pedestriA,' achievements, is William Brockbauk. He is a, tive of Milloin, in Cumberland. He daily P c 7 * • formed the distance between Whiiehav'e - n and Uit verstone, on foot, under die. disagreable stance of frequently wading the river at Ald" caster, by which place he constantly w en t, whit: b „ e l at least three. miles." round ;" and, inciudinc.4 different calls he had to make, at a short diStal c , from the road, his -dady task was not short of miles. He is at present Walkiug - Post 141 " . ' Manchester to Glossop; i n D e rbyshi re , a- di,",;11 of 16 miles, which he p e rf o rms ev e ry day (Sulli excepted), returns the same evening,' and i3z l c )ll3 j delivers the letters, newspapers, .64c. in tbar - PSA bus and commercial country,_ to all near the I' ol ., which makes his daily task nut less than 35 rni l 7; or upwards; and what, is more extraordinatii has performed this' business .for upw a rd; of , years, Without the inten:elition of . a . t b v ., Sunday, and has never v.tried a quarter of at' li ` it f from his usual time of arriviou at Gross p. 'l 4 ` . forms all this iniess Ulan- 12 hours a-day. Cor r These particulars are from a ~1-specint.ble spondent at Glossop, wh o has known Waco' bank 20 years,sand sees him almost daily. • As a proof of, the nhkines% of the climate in Ifr e Vicinity of Loch Ness, notwithstanding toe late verity of the.weather in .c.)the • piaces i :there is o° 4 ; we are intortned, in the g.trden cl W Vu A .,sett LER, Esq. an apple-treym t<<ll blossom. broth „ L ag* On the 7th inst. at her. er's house, Geor.ge' — '7 l , ar GlasAow, the Lady of K. S. Grewll,l.l, L s ,. y ouL4 , Granard, of a Sun and Heir. A ,;3 oft On "I'hursthy, the Lady 01 William F ren d , E s q. " to the I(,,ek Lite Asstfraiicp Company, o f a Datigtiterj i ,, iic o; Yesterday, in.Thavies, inu, the wire ot I, BowYer. '*--- i E q. 01 . A Son. -1, • , . #IE D. tllO on, the Bth i n st. a t St. Ge orge ' s , H ano ver s qUa re ' lion. Fitzroy Stanhope, to Miss Caroline wy ndh.an- „ A ' ()n M,,ntlay se'nnight, Whitehaven, Tirmidas Cope., • Silk -merchant, of Coventry, to Mts. liana, or , nice to Adniiral Lutwidge. L..tely, at Oidswiaforct, Mr. Hampton, Gtocer,.s4S l ‘ I ► ftot bridge, to Miss Richards, (laughter of Mr. Rich:Li:ls. •.^ \rule Inc, ill that town. - • • DiLin, . . On Monday last, at Woolwich, in the pith year oi . )1 , i 6 's e ' Mr. William Thomas, Butchr, ot tnat piaLe. c , t riut" -On ‘Vedliesday last, ' at ' his house at Kennington, ' • ' Horton, Esq. sli , Oi' . . On the 9th inst. at Bath, auer.two days illness, ,--, . -- !,,-At" zabcth Hails, daughter of ' Yu. Thomas liarris, of ( -ir' street . ti ik A kw days since, after a short but severe But la, wile.of lohn Builer..E.;q. or rtrunswick-squ. c pi 4 tth th.z 30t1t ult. Mrs. Ada y Ui Alt. Hunter, Writer in Edinburgh. 11. On the stst ult. at 1 (0 —' mieson,•sen. Esq. W. S. Edinburgh. Lately, at Oldswinford, -near Ltowbridge, in the 6 9' of her age, Mrs. Barrington-, widow of iota) Harris 'Pr' ton, Ebq. late-of Forest, in Montgomeryshire. 'On Wed,esday se'nnight, aged 80, Mr. Wilhain Oa" of Deritend.• On Thursday se'nnight, aged 68, Mr. Bohn Thornwo, of Digbei h. t< 1( YESTF Stock, •. Navy per Cent 99i Irish 5 per Cent. 9f i 4 pc , Lent. 82 8: 82 3 per Cent. Red oo 3 per Cent. Con. 66i 67 13 L. Ann. :8 t. *6th 3- 16ths • . / knAy Indii Steck, i?t India 14)•.• - ts, 6.i. 7s f' l 7, Excheiitter 1:s it., 6.. 9'' o:llnium, 3 I L.t (..cit. 65 Ditio Atlii. tut 2 :01 just• 67i till.:11 WATER Al' LONDON BR IDG E To - " `"- KOV , I. • a f a 9' A/Liming, 5 . min. after 9. 1 .A_tterm.oll, 40 Mill. ^ -1 MONDAY. t ~ to' 'Morning, 14 trfilt, after to. 1 AttemOon, 49 1114 a-i---"....." LONDON: Ptinted by " RICY aAD HARRIS, Of No. 4, Nl,artlett-court, Bow-stree and pa.:l.bbej by Wll 1,4 tikMlGkk prs, S,.u(J) are c, C•itni.efi STIArC; At the SuN-Oyrcs No. 112 Strand; where ddve/tisements, Orders for the ['goer, letters for the Ecillur o (tost-paiti) must be addrehsed.